Zoe's LWL Review Template

 

I made a template using the InDesign  software that allowed me to produce a template using the correct dimensions and the correct positioning of text and images. I then imported our review into the template and made sure it fitted nicely in the text boxes and had the same font as the font used in a Little White Lies review. The image isn't an image from our film as this is only a rough idea of what the final one will look like and in the final one we will be sure to use an image from our film that we feel most portrays the genre of the film.

Final Review

PARAGRAPH 1: SYNOPSIS (65 WORDS)

One bizarre board game brings disturbance to a cluster of close friends who opted for a serene evening of sipping wine and chatting, but each roll of the dice chucks a new challenge which channels fear and bewilderment amongst the group. In this intriguing short film, four friends discover the brutal consequences of one friend’s greed as they become victims of a life gambling game.

PARAGRAPH 2: CHARACTERS/CONTEXT (96 WORDS)

The remarkable confidence of the actors shone through wonderfully, making the experience more engrossing to watch; the inclusion of nifty camera shots allowed scenes to upsurge with expertise and Olympus smartly kept the focus on the board game as if we were in the shoes of the villainous Monopoly man himself. The characters continuously progress around the board until they land on a ‘Chance’ card and the players have a 50/50 chance of the card being positive or negative. Nevertheless, in a departure from the familiar game, supernatural occurrences ensue, producing real money to the participants.

PARAGRAPH 3: GENRE/AUDIENCE (162 WORDS)

Supernatural elements are explored to justify the sinister events produced by the Monopoly board that are inexplicable to the human eye. The enigma generated conveys the aspects of a Horror genre whilst sustaining elements of a Fantasy in the mayhem caused by the sorcerous board game. Conversely Jon Favreau’s film Zathura uses a comparable narrative of two brothers discovering a board game that also causes unexplainable events. Contrastingly however, director Favreau uses repeated conventions of a Sci-Fi Action Adventure film as opposed to a Horror Fantasy which uses financial snags to drive the narrative. Both films target a different audience; Zathura targets a family audience due to its playful spin on the Astronaut protagonist which the film reveals to be an important character due to the unity he brings to the squabbling siblings. Olympus’ Advance to Go attempts to appeal to an audience aged from seventeen to twenty-five by characterising their protagonists as young and realistically troubled in terms of financial issues.

PARAGRAPH 4: REVIEWERS EXPERIENCE (96 WORDS)

What makes this Fantasy Horror so captivating is the simplicity of the familiar family board game being possessed and the financial theme which addresses their young adult audience. But was it not inevitable that this Monopoly driven narrative was going to involve someone cheating? Unsurprisingly, Charley Baker’s portrayal of his character Russell projected greed and selfishness which caused him to be a dislikeable character. It’s clear that Olympus have successfully fed their young adult demographic with generous helpings of hellish events which are enough to keep them satisfied until their next craving for another spine-tingling film.

WORD COUNT: 419

Review Feedback

After receiving feedback on the draft we applied the comments shown above to our review which allowed it to be more short and snappy as we had too much text which meant we had exceeded the word limit. We also had adjectives that weren't needed in places, along with other unnecessary words that over bulked the review. 

Review Draft

PARAGRAPH 1: SYNOPSIS (85 WORDS)

One bizarre board game brings a lot disturbance to a cluster of close friends that merely opted for a serene evening of sipping wine and chatting, but each roll of the dice chucks a new challenge which channels fear and bewilderment amongst the group. Four friends discover the brutal consequences of one friend’s greed as they become victims of a life gambling game. Production Company Olympus plunge the audience into a state of confusion and turmoil with their unusual adaptation of the Monopoly board game.

PARAGRAPH 2: CHARACTERS AND CONTEXT (180 WORDS)

The remarkable confidence of the young actors shone through wonderfully, with Marion (Lily Smith), Andrew (Jack Hopkins), Taylor (Amy Snake), and Russell (Charley Baker) all making the exciting experience all the more engrossing to watch. With the inclusion of nifty camera shots, the scenes rose with expertise and the tension grew. The film-makers smartly kept the focus on the board game itself, making it all the more thrilling to watch as if we were in the shoes of the devilled monopoly man himself. Like the Monopoly game itself, the characters continuously progress around the board, until they land on a ‘Chance’ card. Like the real game, the players have a 50/50 chance of the card coming out positively or negatively, however during the early stages of this well constructed game, the majority are positive. Unlike the real game, supernatural occurrences ensue, producing real money to the participants. To the joy of the players, they eagerly continue the game, falsely believing that it can only get better, however the selfishness of one character destroys the game for the rest of them…

PARAGRAPH 3: GENRE (118 WORDS)

Supernatural elements are explored thoroughly to justify the sinister events produced by the Monopoly board that are unexplainable to the human eye. The sudden absence of Lily Smith’s character, Marion, generates enigma amongst the viewer and the characters on screen, which ultimately conveys aspects of a Horror genre whilst sustaining elements of a Fantasy due to the mystic mayhem caused by the sorcerous board game. Conversely Jon Favreau’s 2005 film Zathura uses a comparable narrative of two brothers discovering a board game that also causes unexplainable events to occur. Contrastingly however, director Jon Favreau uses repeated conventions of a Sci-Fi Action Adventure film as opposed to a Horror Fantasy which uses factual financial snags to drive the narrative.

PARAGRAPH 4: HOW THE PLOT DEVELOPS, ETC. (105 WORDS)

The plot thickens when during the hunt for Lily Smith’s character, Marion, we see Russell cheat the game by stealing the money. The resulting actions lead to the awe-inspiring build-up of tension, portraying more challenges for the four friends to face. Much like the 1995 fantasy film, Jumanji, the friends find themselves locked into the games fierce unfolding events, testing their own will power to succeed the game and survive. The single barbaric feat proves irredeemably cruel as the film soon unveils the consequences of his act, as a feeble beam of light exposes his dear friend lying motionless behind the shadows of the hallway.

PARAGRAPH 5: REVIEWERS EXPERIENCE (82 WORDS)

What makes this particular Fantasy Horror so electrifying is the simplicity of Monopoly being possessed and (with the help of co-writer Joe D Blissett) the characters are somewhat relatable with their blatant money issues and lack of care for financial problems. But was it not inevitable that this Monopoly driven narrative was going to involve someone cheating? Unsurprisingly Charley Baker’s portrayal of his character Russell projected greed and selfishness which caused him to be a dislikeable character amongst his other innocent associates.

WORD COUNT: 570

Poster 1

Language in LWL

Owen Harris’ Kill Your Friends is a film which dares the viewer to utterly despise its every frame. Its raison d’être is to evoke unadulterated contempt – of people, of places, of trends, of art, of business, of everyone and everything. Its cocksure cynicism is precision primed to alienate.

In the paragraph above is a clear opinion summarising the writers thoughts on the film, being negative the writer wants the audience to know from the start their distaste towards the film - showing that the lwl magazine doesn't hold back on negative feedback. 

It’s a film which scribbles a chalk penis on the back of your jacket, nudges you into a job interview and then Periscopes the event from the corridor. Entirely in line with its unambiguous aims, this film does manage to inspire a sense of utter, putrefying revulsion towards it. The sheer, all-encompassing breadth of its casual abhorrence was in itself a feat. If you get a kick out of spending time with some of history’s most repellant shitbags, then Kill Your Friends is a double lottery win. Does the fact that this film achieves what it sets out to do make it a success? Yes and no. Even when you’re painting with dog shit, it’s always possible to produce an ugly picture – just as it’s equally possible to produce a pretty one. This one is a panoramic brown eyesore.

Again the second paragraph shares the writers distaste for the film along with sarcasm which is common in the reviews throughout the magazine. The writer tries to introduce some positivity into the review when saying 'Does the fact that this film achieves what it sets out to do make it a success? Yes and no' but the explanation turns it back onto negative.

Kill Your Friends runs with the vague and unconvincing assumption that there were certain parties within the British music industry of the mid- to-late ’90s who managed to coast along – excel, even – without expending an ounce of brain power. It was simply a case of careerist nit-wits making plays that were likely to get them a promotion, or nobble over one of their equally power hungry colleagues.

The third paragraph hints at parts of the films plot, being slightly more detailed but still brutal in its response. 

Nicholas Hoult plays charmless tosspiece Steven Stelfox – the slick ladder-climber who is bracingly honest about his complete dearth of professional nous and disinterest in the high-stakes world of music A&R. A voiceover narration states this point-blank were there any ambiguity over the matter, and this is intended as a way to help us empathise with Stelfox as he’s being forthright about his modest capabilities. Weak parodies of real bands are paraded through the offices, observations about how they’re fame-hungry parasites are passed off as cutting cultural commentary.

Yet again in the fourth paragraph refers to some context, rather than being informative it focuses on the negatives. However, the information/context given tells the audience the actor, introduces the character and sound so reading between the lines and looking at the information says a lot. 

A jolly to Cannes to find the next big superhit results in Stelfox picking up the rights to an awful, X-rated house tune when he sees people dancing to it in a club. He sees this high-risk ploy as a way to impress his bosses – his impulse that the public at large will eat up any old rubbish is shared by the filmmakers. It’s such a tin-eared, hollow, sneering depiction of the era that nothing even vaguely resembling valuable insight lands. 

Paragraph five talks more openly about the directors intentions that haven't worked as well as expected, the paragraph below follows this on. Making references to books that they have similarities too, then explaining more of the plots poor outcome along with slight references to genre.

What someone has then done is read Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho and taken its (admittedly strident) satirical intent at face value, as the second half of the film focuses on Stelfox’s transformation from cheeky chancer to actual homicidal maniac. With no sign that any of this should be consumed as an anti-corporate allegory, the film piles up the unlikely twists, the bumbling one-note characters and the “clever” set-pieces which exist to emphasise the sickening extent of Stelfox’s Machiavellian moxie. Bad writing and blind chance conspire to keep our hero out of prison. No-one cares what he’s doing – and that’s the joke.

Underneath the smile and the pluck, everyone is a self-serving, narcissistic cretin. Not only does this film want you to hate every fibre of its being, it hates you right back. Thanks.

To summerise the writer gave a short and honest end, being sarcastic but taking the opportunity to share how bad the film was. 

From this bad review it has shown me the harsher side of little white lies and they do not hold back on their opinions which is important to learn. Looking in class at other reviews the structure for most is:

1. contexts for the film
2. summary of information about protagonist/s and key players
3. key themes, issues and plot
4. narrative devices 
5. use and adaptation of genre
6. reviewers experience
7. summary sentence

Review plan - Zoe Cameron-Waller

The above image is my review plan which demonstrates the rough layout of the review and what it will contain.

To be more specific, my paragraphs will include a range of language styles such as adjectives, adverbs, verbs, nouns and maybe a pun. The first paragraph will begin with a drop capital in order to mirror the same conventions of a Little White Lies review. I will also make sure our review contains intertextuality of other existing movies that relate to our short film such as Jumaji and Zathura. These will feature in the 4th paragraph that talks about themes and genre. Intertextuality may also creep into the 5th paragraph.

After reading some of the Little White Lies reviews, it's become apparent to me as the reader, that they tend to use informal language here and there to give it their own unique view. I think this works well as it adds relaxed undertones to the review which makes it more enjoyable and less serious and monotone which is what I hope to incorporate into our review. I also want to include a few negative critical points to make it seem realistic and unbiased.

In terms of layout, everything will be justified correctly and aligned when it comes to making the real thing. I have already included the basic conventions of a Little White Lies review, such as:

• 3 digit page number
• Main image
• Title, actors and release date
• Review section
• Ranking system
• 5 paragraphs